Las Vegas Boulevard

[kernals12]

I've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)

Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.

Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.

In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.

If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>

Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.

And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)

[DenverBrian]

I've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)

Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.

Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.

In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.

If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>

Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.

And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)

I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.

[kernals12]

I've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)

Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.

Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.

In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.

If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>

Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.

And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)

I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.

Let's assume that 4 lanes would be enough. You still need to contend with the high water table that scuttled the pedestrian tunnels proposed in the 90s

[DenverBrian]

I've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)

Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.

Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.

In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.

If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>

Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.

And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)

I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.

Let's assume that 4 lanes would be enough. You still need to contend with the high water table that scuttled the pedestrian tunnels proposed in the 90s

Obstacles are always there. If water tables couldn't be overcome, tunnels like the Big Dig in Boston would never have occurred. <shrugs>

[kernals12]

I've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)

Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.

Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.

In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.

If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>

Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.

And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)

I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.

Let's assume that 4 lanes would be enough. You still need to contend with the high water table that scuttled the pedestrian tunnels proposed in the 90s

Obstacles are always there. If water tables couldn't be overcome, tunnels like the Big Dig in Boston would never have occurred. <shrugs>

The Big Dig cost $20 billion.

[JayhawkCO]

I've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)

Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.

Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.

In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.

If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>

Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.

And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)

I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.

Let's assume that 4 lanes would be enough. You still need to contend with the high water table that scuttled the pedestrian tunnels proposed in the 90s

Obstacles are always there. If water tables couldn't be overcome, tunnels like the Big Dig in Boston would never have occurred. <shrugs>

The Big Dig cost $20 billion.

I'm pretty sure Vegas has the cash.

[kernals12]

So, Max, is it just my off-the-wall ideas that you enjoy trampling on? Because I'd think you'd have some opinions on putting Las Vegas Boulevard in a tunnel

[Max Rockatansky]

So, Max, is it just my off-the-wall ideas that you enjoy trampling on? Because I'd think you'd have some opinions on putting Las Vegas Boulevard in a tunnel

Why?  You looking to have more of your posts trampled on?

[kernals12]

So, Max, is it just my off-the-wall ideas that you enjoy trampling on? Because I'd think you'd have some opinions on putting Las Vegas Boulevard in a tunnel

Why?  You looking to have more of your posts trampled on?

So you admit it's only me you have it in for?

[Max Rockatansky]

So, Max, is it just my off-the-wall ideas that you enjoy trampling on? Because I'd think you'd have some opinions on putting Las Vegas Boulevard in a tunnel

Why?  You looking to have more of your posts trampled on?

So you admit it's only me you have it in for?

Have I insinuated that I would support capping or tunneling Las Vegas Boulevard? 

You're the one inviting me into whatever this is.   

[kernals12]

So, Max, is it just my off-the-wall ideas that you enjoy trampling on? Because I'd think you'd have some opinions on putting Las Vegas Boulevard in a tunnel

Why?  You looking to have more of your posts trampled on?

So you admit it's only me you have it in for?

Have I insinuated that I would support capping or tunneling Las Vegas Boulevard? 

You're the one inviting me into whatever this is.   

Whenever I'm the one making suggestions, you happily invite yourself in.

[Scott5114]

The whole point of the Strip is to look at all the pretty lights and stuff. Can't really do that in a tunnel.

Let Fremont be Fremont and LVB be LVB.

[Max Rockatansky]

So, Max, is it just my off-the-wall ideas that you enjoy trampling on? Because I'd think you'd have some opinions on putting Las Vegas Boulevard in a tunnel

Why?  You looking to have more of your posts trampled on?

So you admit it's only me you have it in for?

Have I insinuated that I would support capping or tunneling Las Vegas Boulevard? 

You're the one inviting me into whatever this is.   

Whenever I'm the one making suggestions, you happily invite yourself in.

Maybe point the mirror at yourself and ask why that is?  You're the one demanding vindication and respect in a thread which you really haven't been in mix of the conversation.  If you had really looked into this topic you would have found that I have questioned the logic of many assumptions/things.

I'm willing to give you a you a fair shake.  The problem is you keep doing weird shit like this every time I think you are going to grow up a little.   

[hobsini2]

I've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)

Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.

Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.

In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.

If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>

Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.

And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)

I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.

Let's assume that 4 lanes would be enough. You still need to contend with the high water table that scuttled the pedestrian tunnels proposed in the 90s

Obstacles are always there. If water tables couldn't be overcome, tunnels like the Big Dig in Boston would never have occurred. <shrugs>

The Big Dig cost $20 billion.

Are you saying the Big Dig was not worth putting I-93 under the city and having that beautiful Rose Kennedy Greenway at the surface level instead? Have you ever been in Boston?

[PColumbus73]

I guess the point was that an equivalent $20 billion to tunnel Las Vegas Blvd is probably not worth the expense. I-93 was a tight, congested elevated highway, so the Big Dig was the best way to improve I-93 through central Boston.

The density around the Strip is not the same as downtown Boston. Also, driving the Strip is a tourist draw itself.

If the need is to improve through traffic, creating a north-south arterial to complement I-15 and Las Vegas Blvd might be more cost effective. Either by streamlining Frank Sinatra / Sammy Davis / Industrial / Grand Central up to I-11 or turning one of the other existing roads into a super-arterial (similar to Desert Inn).

Or using $20 billion to fund transit lines along The Strip.

[dbz77]

I guess the point was that an equivalent $20 billion to tunnel Las Vegas Blvd is probably not worth the expense. I-93 was a tight, congested elevated highway, so the Big Dig was the best way to improve I-93 through central Boston.

The density around the Strip is not the same as downtown Boston. Also, driving the Strip is a tourist draw itself.

If the need is to improve through traffic, creating a north-south arterial to complement I-15 and Las Vegas Blvd might be more cost effective. Either by streamlining Frank Sinatra / Sammy Davis / Industrial / Grand Central up to I-11 or turning one of the other existing roads into a super-arterial (similar to Desert Inn).

Or using $20 billion to fund transit lines along The Strip.

there already is a transit line known as the Deuce.

[vdeane]

So, Max, is it just my off-the-wall ideas that you enjoy trampling on? Because I'd think you'd have some opinions on putting Las Vegas Boulevard in a tunnel

I suspect you'd get a better reception if you put all your fantastical stuff in Fictional.

[pderocco]

I've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)

Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.

Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.

In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.

If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>

Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.

And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)

I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.

Let's assume that 4 lanes would be enough. You still need to contend with the high water table that scuttled the pedestrian tunnels proposed in the 90s

Obstacles are always there. If water tables couldn't be overcome, tunnels like the Big Dig in Boston would never have occurred. <shrugs>

The Big Dig cost $20 billion.

And it leaked.

[Rothman]

Big Dig finally turned out okay.  Signage didn't work out as well as they thought, but overall, the concept worked.

Oh wait, this is a thread about I-11.

Forum's a mess.

[kernals12]

I've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)

Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.

Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.

In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.

If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>

Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.

And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)

I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.

Let's assume that 4 lanes would be enough. You still need to contend with the high water table that scuttled the pedestrian tunnels proposed in the 90s

Obstacles are always there. If water tables couldn't be overcome, tunnels like the Big Dig in Boston would never have occurred. <shrugs>

The Big Dig cost $20 billion.

Are you saying the Big Dig was not worth putting I-93 under the city and having that beautiful Rose Kennedy Greenway at the surface level instead? Have you ever been in Boston?

I lived near Boston until 3 months ago. I'm glad they built it, from what I've heard it's eased congestion from what it was before. But I'm not sure it would've penciled out in a cost-benefit analysis if they had known beforehand how much it would cost. Anyways, an interstate highway is one thing, but a city street is another.

[kernals12]

I guess the point was that an equivalent $20 billion to tunnel Las Vegas Blvd is probably not worth the expense. I-93 was a tight, congested elevated highway, so the Big Dig was the best way to improve I-93 through central Boston.

The density around the Strip is not the same as downtown Boston. Also, driving the Strip is a tourist draw itself.

If the need is to improve through traffic, creating a north-south arterial to complement I-15 and Las Vegas Blvd might be more cost effective. Either by streamlining Frank Sinatra / Sammy Davis / Industrial / Grand Central up to I-11 or turning one of the other existing roads into a super-arterial (similar to Desert Inn).

Or using $20 billion to fund transit lines along The Strip.

I-15 already serves as an effective super arterial.

And they've tried transit with the monorail and people movers that connect a handful of resorts. The problem with transit is it has to accelerate and decelerate slowly enough so that standing passengers don't get knocked over, that makes them slow.

The only way out of this is probably going to be electronically connecting cars into trains that can more efficiently use current road space.

[PColumbus73]

The discussions here seem to make it a 50/50 between I-15 and Las Vegas Blvd on which one is the least congested. It also sounds like the general perception is that there are only 2 (semi-)reliable north-south arterials to get through the Strip. Making modifications or encouraging people to use a third or fourth might not be a bad idea, maybe Paradise Road or Frank Sinatra, et al.

And they've tried transit with the monorail and people movers that connect a handful of resorts. The problem with transit is it has to accelerate and decelerate slowly enough so that standing passengers don't get knocked over, that makes them slow.

The downside of the monorail is that it's lack of visibility, and the fact that people have to navigate through the casinos to get to it from Las Vegas Blvd, the east half of the Blvd at that. Naturally, the casinos have an incentive to try and capture that foot traffic and thus it's not in their interest to make it easier to get to the stations. The individual people-movers are more geared to move people between properties, not provide a general mass transit service, again, they would prefer to keep potential customers within their properties.

Since they already have The Deuce, they could convert a lane of Las Vegas Blvd into bus only to allow BRT service.

The only way out of this is probably going to be electronically connecting cars into trains that can more efficiently use current road space.

So, no to trains, but yes to having cars behave like trains? Isn't that what the Hyperloop is trying to be? The Deuce already carries more passengers than two cars attached end-to-end.

[hobsini2]

I've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)

Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.

Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.

In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.

If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>

Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.

And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)

I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.

Let's assume that 4 lanes would be enough. You still need to contend with the high water table that scuttled the pedestrian tunnels proposed in the 90s

Obstacles are always there. If water tables couldn't be overcome, tunnels like the Big Dig in Boston would never have occurred. <shrugs>

The Big Dig cost $20 billion.

Are you saying the Big Dig was not worth putting I-93 under the city and having that beautiful Rose Kennedy Greenway at the surface level instead? Have you ever been in Boston?

I lived near Boston until 3 months ago. I'm glad they built it, from what I've heard it's eased congestion from what it was before. But I'm not sure it would've penciled out in a cost-benefit analysis if they had known beforehand how much it would cost. Anyways, an interstate highway is one thing, but a city street is another.

But Las Vegas Blvd is as wide as I-93 was in Boston. It probably would cost in the neighborhood of 15 billion to put it underground from Russell Rd to St Louis Ave. So while technically it is not an interstate, it is going to cost as much as if it were an interstate.

[hobsini2]

Actually, now that I think about it, you could turn Las Vegas Blvd into a similar idea that Wacker Dr is in Chicago. The Lower Blvd would be 2 or 3 lanes each way with limited access, say once a mile, for through traffic. The Upper Blvd would be for the tourists and trucks. I could see a scenario where it would access points at Mandalay Bay Rd, Flamingo Rd, Desert Inn Rd, and Sahara Ave. I know it's a bit fictional but it is related.

[JayhawkCO]

I really don't think anything needs to get fixed with Las Vegas Blvd, the road. It's fine to drive on. Walking on the sidewalks next to it? If you're a person that enjoys walking faster than a sloth, it's an exercise in restraint.